Gutierrez May Support Rubio's DREAM Bill

Luis Gutierrez has told Fox News Latino that he may support Marco Rubio's Dream Act proposal depending on the actual wording of a bill. Rubio promises a bill will be introduced within a few weeks, though as I noted before, I'll believe it when I see it. The cynic in me believes Rubio counted on Democrats reflexively opposing his measure which would allow Republicans to argue Democrats are more interested in Latino votes than actually solving immigration problems. But actually having a vote where all the Democrats back Rubio and most Republicans oppose him would be a disaster. And an elaborate ceremony at the White House with an enthusiastic Barack Obama signing the bill surely won't make the Romney folks happy. But we shall see...

Ridiculous? More like common sense--unless you think a U.S. population of a billion+ is a good idea. We're already on that tragic path even with our supposedly limited immigration policy.

USC
-
05-22-2012 01:25 PM

"Ridiculous? More like common sense--unless you think a U.S. population of a billion+ is a good idea. We're already on that tragic path even with our supposedly limited immigration policy."

Have you ever peeped out of the airplane when flying over "fly over" country? How about driving from LAS to the South Rim? Those empty desolate vistas need to be populated. Who is anyone to say whether the right population for the USA is 50 million or 2 billion. You want bureaucrats to pick the right number? That is how things were done "Back in the USSR".

Besides, a reduction in population is achieved by mass sterilization and not through movement of people. You would do well to remember that if a couple have less than 2 children then that population is on the way to extinction. That is what is happening in Europe.

China wants to half its population so they came up with the one child policy. If you are serious of the US achieving a population reduction you should be petitioning your Congressmen/Senators to emulate China's one child policy.

NEED to be? Why? And with what water? I think most people actually value "empty desolate vistas".

"Who is anyone to say whether the right population for the USA is 50 million or 2 billion. You want bureaucrats to pick the right number?"

I think we should listen to biologists and ecological scientists more than shortsighted and self-interested plutocrats. You don't even need an exact optimal population number, just a direction: at least avoid policies (high immigration) which are pushing you in the wrong direction.

"If you are serious of the US achieving a population reduction you should be petitioning your Congressmen/Senators to emulate China's one child policy."

Why? The population growth problem in the U.S. isn't due to birthrate, but immigration.

USC
-
05-22-2012 06:54 PM

"Why? The population growth problem in the U.S. isn't due to birthrate, but immigration."

"For example, during November 2011, the U.S. Population Clock used the following estimates in producing its estimated running total:

oOne birth every 8 seconds

oOne death every 12 seconds

oOne net international immigrant (including military personnel) every 43 seconds

oResulting in a net gain of one person every 16 seconds"

So, your assertion stands disproved.

The birth rate by a factor of 5+ and the death rate by a factor of 3+ (as opposed to immigration) cause an intolerable increase in population.

If your serious about this issue, you should work on getting the birth rate down and the death rate up. How? Forcible sterlization and denial of medical care to of those deemed unworthy.

Janet in California
-
05-22-2012 07:20 PM

USC:

"So, your assertion stands disproved."

You nailed him real good on that one. LOL!!

Sa
-
05-22-2012 07:25 PM

Where is the Republican Dream bill?

Jack
-
05-22-2012 07:56 PM

USC, I did not understand your post but that's OK. I am going by studies like this by the Census Bureau. Pew had the exact same figure (82%).

The U.S. Census Bureau projects the U.S. population will grow 42% between 2010 and
2050.1 The 2010 Census determined the US population to be approximately 309 million
persons.2 The Census Bureau estimates it will rise to 439 million by 2050.3 Based on trends of
the last half century, it is estimated that the majority of that population growth (82%) will be due
to immigrants and their descendants.4

Jack, let's explain to you very simply. If over a period of time, 50 people were born, 45 people died, 5 people moved in, and 3 people moved out, the population increased by 7 people. You count as if 5 those 7 came from immigrantion. USC counts correctly that 2 came from net migration and 5 came from net births.

You can try to rig your math all you want, but the truth is that natural births contribute more to population growth.

Jack
-
05-23-2012 06:27 PM

"You can try to rig your math all you want, but the truth is that natural births contribute more to population growth."

The "math" is from the Census Bureau and Pew Research. Their projections factor in the descendants of immigrants. It's right in what I posted. The descendants of immigrants are counted in the effect of immigration on population growth and you do not appear to be accounting for that.

Yet Another Voice
-
05-24-2012 08:00 AM

Jack, please let me understand. Are you NOT a descendant of immigrants?

USC
-
05-24-2012 09:10 AM

"The "math" is from the Census Bureau and Pew Research."

The figures I cited were from the Census Bureau (see link) and are a reflection of where the population growth is occuring today. You are citing an irrelevant projection of what the situation will be in 2050. Given that ecologists are NOT scientists (though, they do claim to be) there isn't any way to predict what the population will be 10 years out let alone 40.

As to the math, though it is simple high school math, it might well be beyond the capabilities of ecologists and environmental "scientists" I will throw a couple of hints to get you started. Compute the LCM (to compare population growth from births and immigration), figure out the number of seconds in a year, divide by 43 to figure out the increase from immigration. Unless immigrants are rabbits on steroids your cite is complete garbage and trash.

USC
-
05-24-2012 09:33 AM

"The "math" is from the Census Bureau and Pew Research."

No it is not from the Census Bureau. It is only from the Pew Hispanic Center. See link below from the FEMA report you cite.